In my opinion there is no such thing as an unstoppable player, because there is no perfect player. Laver for example couldnt do much , even when playing his best, on a fast court against a power hitter (Becker, Sampras, Ivanisevic, etc) with a perfect serve day. How could he, if he isnt able to touch the ball on the return games??? Take a look to the 5 set between Nadal and Rosol at Wimbledon, i honestly dont know if Laver, Sampras, Mc Enroe, Federer or whoever you choose would have stopped Rosol that day. In a way mostly all the players at the top level can be unstoppable so for the same reason none of them really are

Click to expand...

yeah, the thing here is even against a player playing that well, if you can hold serve, you might be able to capitalize on a slight drop of level or come up with a bit of inspirational play to break or take it in a breaker ....

for example, take the second set of federer-murray wimbledon final in 2012 ...... murray was playing better than federer there ....but federer managed to hold his serve and came up with an inspirational game out of nowhere to break murray and seal the set ....

as far as nadal-rosol match goes, well, no one would have it easy vs the rosol who showed up in the 5th set, but I think the other superior grass court players could've easily taken 3 sets out of the first 4 ....

I get your point that no one is really unstoppable in the absolute sense, just that it is possible to discuss relatively .....

Dan, I had been hoping that we now can discuss on a higher level than before and that you give up to write very strange posts. But I must learn that you again come with that "exhibition" nonsense...

BBC 2 in 1964 was a hard fought top tournament with a worthy winner, Gonzalez. British Lawn Tennis has brought an article on that event. Best of three sets only? Many big tournaments of the pros were best of three, f. i. MSG, PSW... To be correct: MOST pro tournaments were best of three.

Click to expand...

Most important pro tournaments had a best-of-five sets final.
PSW (is that the Pacific South West?) as in post-open era?
Best-of-three does not show STAMINA, which should be tested in a major event.

What is the right number of elite players to define tough or weak era?
If it is 4, then 1981 or 1991
If it is 7 then 1958 and 1971
If it is 10 then 1985 and 1995
Of course 1971 and 1981 can be mentioned for the best top 15 ever

Weakest eras are 20's, 40' s and amateur 60's and of course 2003-2007
The 30's would be in the middle

What is the right number of elite players to define tough or weak era?
If it is 4, then 1981 or 1991
If it is 7 then 1958 and 1971
If it is 10 then 1985 and 1995
Of course 1971 and 1981 can be mentioned for the best top 15 ever

Weakest eras are 20's, 40' s and amateur 60's and of course 2003-2007
The 30's would be in the middle

Click to expand...

Come on man, stop the trolling please. I know that it is pointless to discuss with you but let`s take a quick look at the field of the 1967 pros, which was Laver`s highest level ever according to most experts (by the way, i rank Rod number 2 all time, perhaps even number 1, he is too close with Fed up there imo).
A field composed of peak Laver, although still great, past his prime Rosewall, ''wheelchair" version of Hoad, senior tour version of Gonzalez, Gimeno (not much of a threath outside clay), Stolle (a second stringer to Emerson in the amateur ranks), and then a list of legends like Buchholz, Ralston, McKay, Davidson, Mills, Barthes, etc. Yeah i see it clearly, that field is just mind boggling.
Lets look at 2004 ''joke'' field: prime Federer, prime Hewitt, prime Roddick, prime Safin, prime Nalbandian, old Agassi, Henman, Coria, Gaudio, Moya, Ferrero, Grosjean, Johansson, etc.
Well now lets see the ''club level'' field of 2007: prime Federer, clay court beast Nadal, young Djokovic, peak Nalbandian, Davydenko, Roddick, Blake, Gonzalez, Ferrer, etc.

Come on man, stop the trolling please. I know that it is pointless to discuss with you but let`s take a quick look at the field of the 1967 pros, which was Laver`s highest level ever according to most experts (by the way, i rank Rod number 2 all time, perhaps even number 1, he is too close with Fed up there imo).
A field composed of peak Laver, although still great, past his prime Rosewall, ''wheelchair" version of Hoad, senior tour version of Gonzalez, Gimeno (not much of a threath outside clay), Stolle (a second stringer to Emerson in the amateur ranks), and then a list of legends like Buchholz, Ralston, McKay, Davidson, Mills, Barthes, etc. Yeah i see it clearly, that field is just mind boggling.
Lets look at 2004 ''joke'' field: prime Federer, prime Hewitt, prime Roddick, prime Safin, prime Nalbandian, old Agassi, Henman, Coria, Gaudio, Moya, Ferrero, Grosjean, Johansson, etc.
Well now lets see the ''club level'': prime Federer, clay court beast Nadal, young Djokovic, peak Nalbandian, Davydenko, Roddick, Blake, Gonzalez, Ferrer, etc.

Yes, yo do have a point. Weak eras exist after all....

Click to expand...

Deep down kiki knows the 60s were very weak and he's just trolling. With split fields and very few athletes competing, there's no comparison to the new millenium. Laver, Agassi, Lendl....all have conceded that the depth/competition is higher than their respective era.

Come on man, stop the trolling please. I know that it is pointless to discuss with you but let`s take a quick look at the field of the 1967 pros, which was Laver`s highest level ever according to most experts (by the way, i rank Rod number 2 all time, perhaps even number 1, he is too close with Fed up there imo).
A field composed of peak Laver, although still great, past his prime Rosewall, ''wheelchair" version of Hoad, senior tour version of Gonzalez, Gimeno (not much of a threath outside clay), Stolle (a second stringer to Emerson in the amateur ranks), and then a list of legends like Buchholz, Ralston, McKay, Davidson, Mills, Barthes, etc. Yeah i see it clearly, that field is just mind boggling.
Lets look at 2004 ''joke'' field: prime Federer, prime Hewitt, prime Roddick, prime Safin, prime Nalbandian, old Agassi, Henman, Coria, Gaudio, Moya, Ferrero, Grosjean, Johansson, etc.
Well now lets see the ''club level'' field of 2007: prime Federer, clay court beast Nadal, young Djokovic, peak Nalbandian, Davydenko, Roddick, Blake, Gonzalez, Ferrer, etc.

Yes, yo do have a point. Weak eras exist after all....

Click to expand...

I am not trolling I give am opinion but I forgot many posters don' t know what a democracy us
Never had the 60 as a top era, read my post
But from 1968 or 1969 it was extremely tough and look at the records of the top 10 or 15 compared to pale and uncompetitive 2002-2007
You know that I have a very strong case here

Deep down kiki knows the 60s were very weak and he's just trolling. With split fields and very few athletes competing, there's no comparison to the new millenium. Laver, Agassi, Lendl....all have conceded that the depth/competition is higher than their respective era.

Click to expand...

I always meant at the top 10-20 which is what defines tough, medium or weak
At the bottom level, yes, there are many more players now and it looks like end if 70-beginning 80 if we talk about good and massive journeymen

The three best eras are late 50 - pros and top ams joint-, early 70 and early to middle 80
Nothing can even dream of being close in terms of toughness, depth of great champions, variety of styles, class,beauty and passion

The three best eras are late 50 - pros and top ams joint-, early 70 and early to middle 80
Nothing can even dream of being close in terms of toughness, depth of great champions, variety of styles, class,beauty and passion

Click to expand...

So the field at the top in 1980 composed of prime Borg, past his prime Connors, youngs Mac and Lendl would wipe the floor with prime Fed, prime Hewitt, prime Roddick and prime Safin. Or would blow off the court prime Djokovic, prime Nadal, past his prime Fed and prime Murray. Nice conclusion there...

Nostalgia must be torturing you. Perhaps in 30 years from now i will be the one schooling the youngsters about weak and strong eras, or educating someone on the super-duper-human abilities of Tipsarevic.:twisted:

So the field at the top in 1980 composed of prime Borg, past his prime Connors, youngs Mac and Lendl would wipe the floor with prime Fed, prime Hewitt, prime Roddick and prime Safin. Or would blow off the court prime Djokovic, prime Nadal, past his prime Fed and prime Murray. Nice conclusion there...

Nostalgia must be torturing you. Perhaps in 30 years from now i will be the one schooling the youngsters about weak and strong eras, or educating someone on the super-duper-human abilities of Tipsarevic.:twisted:

Click to expand...

Tipsarevic nearly beated top players on several occasions. You shouldn't look down on him. By the way, I don't think that Tisparevic is a testimony to the depths of the field.

Tipsarevic nearly beated top players on several occasions. You shouldn't look down on him. By the way, I don't think that Tisparevic is a testimony to the depths of the field.

Click to expand...

I was just being sarcastic about the way Kiki overhypes past era players (especially average players). I dont buy weak or strong eras crap. Since open era began every era produced 2, 3 or 4 fantastic players, Newcombe-Nastase-Smith, Borg-Vilas-Connors, Mac-Lendl, Wilander-Edberg-Becker, Agassi-Sampras-Courier, Fed-Safin-Hewitt, Nadal-Djokovic-Murray.

I was just being sarcastic about the way Kiki overhypes past era players (especially average players). I dont buy weak or strong eras crap. Since open era began every era produced 2, 3 or 4 fantastic players, Newcombe-Nastase-Smith, Borg-Vilas-Connors, Mac-Lendl, Wilander-Edberg-Becker, Agassi-Sampras-Courier, Fed-Safin-Hewitt, Nadal-Djokovic-Murray.

Click to expand...

ARFED, Federer played several years with no Murray and Djokovic and only young Nadal.

ARFED, Federer played several years with no Murray and Djokovic and only young Nadal.

Considering that is not crap!!!

Click to expand...

Nadal was an early bloomer, he was always a very good player on all surfaces. The likes of Hewitt, Roddick, Safin, Nalbandian, Davydenko etc...are really underrated. They'd certainly provide challenges to the current Big 4.

Nadal was an early bloomer, he was always a very good player on all surfaces. The likes of Hewitt, Roddick, Safin, Nalbandian, Davydenko etc...are really underrated. They'd certainly provide challenges to the current Big 4.

Click to expand...

I have written billion of time that past-prime Roddick has a positive H2H against prime Djokovic, that Davy has a positive H2H against Nadal, that Nalbandian bested consecutively prime Djokovic, Nadal and Fed, but Old Bobby never answered...

I have written billion of time that past-prime Roddick has a positive H2H against prime Djokovic, that Davy has a positive H2H against Nadal, that Nalbandian bested consecutively prime Djokovic, Nadal and Fed, but Old Bobby never answered...

Click to expand...

Yep, and Federer dominated those guys to a ridiculous extent during his peak years. I don't see how it's a sign of a weak era if a guy catches fire one tournament and races to the final ala, Gonzalez. Wawrinka very nearly took out peak Djokovic on his best surface, only a bad line call stopped him serving for the match.

So the field at the top in 1980 composed of prime Borg, past his prime Connors, youngs Mac and Lendl would wipe the floor with prime Fed, prime Hewitt, prime Roddick and prime Safin. Or would blow off the court prime Djokovic, prime Nadal, past his prime Fed and prime Murray. Nice conclusion there...

Nostalgia must be torturing you. Perhaps in 30 years from now i will be the one schooling the youngsters about weak and strong eras, or educating someone on the super-duper-human abilities of Tipsarevic.:twisted:

Click to expand...

Jajaja good try, keep talking to yourself that it is possible to even dare placing Safin, Murray or Hewitt at Lendl's, Mac or Connors level
You know, it is the same difference like in music:
While I had Who,Zepp and Queen among a bunch of legends you have Lady Gaga,Bieber and Rhinana
Maybe you all will start understanding but I doubt
When one eats junk every day it is rare will appreciate caviar

Jajaja good try, keep talking to yourself that it is possible to even dare placing Safin, Murray or Hewitt at Lendl's, Mac or Connors level
You know, it is the same difference like in music:
While I had Who,Zepp and Queen among a bunch of legends you have Lady Gaga,Bieber and Rhinana
Maybe you all will start understanding but I doubt
When one eats junk every day it is rare will appreciate caviar

Greatest has to be Sampras or Federer Laver was great but 3 of the slams then were played on grass and there were some old farts sending down pies with no video analysis like today for opponents to get after his weakness.

Jajaja good try, keep talking to yourself that it is possible to even dare placing Safin, Murray or Hewitt at Lendl's, Mac or Connors level
You know, it is the same difference like in music:
While I had Who,Zepp and Queen among a bunch of legends you have Lady Gaga,Bieber and Rhinana
Maybe you all will start understanding but I doubt
When one eats junk every day it is rare will appreciate caviar

Click to expand...

Well by that logic you have AIDS, cold war (which was anything but cold), racial segregation, militar dictatorships, etc. Such a golden age indeed.
Look anytime has highs and lows, and as far as i know i can listen to those bands too, and the classical geniuses of previous centuries (much more enjoyable than your ''golden era" i must say).

Regarding tennis, as an argentinian, i would recommend you to watch Nalbandian toying with Nadal at Paris Indoors 2007. If you find that brand of tennis to be boring then you have no clue whatsoever

Well by that logic you have AIDS, cold war (which was anything but cold), racial segregation, militar dictatorships, etc. Such a golden age indeed.
Look anytime has highs and lows, and as far as i know i can listen to those bands too, and the classical geniuses of previous centuries (much more enjoyable than your ''golden era" i must say).

Regarding tennis, as an argentinian, i would recommend you to watch Nalbandian toying with Nadal at Paris Indoors 2007. If you find that brand of tennis to be boring then you have no clue whatsoever

ARFED, Federer played several years with no Murray and Djokovic and only young Nadal.

Considering that is not crap!!!

Click to expand...

Then i must say that your darling played most of his prime years (he wasn`t by any means number 1 before 1961) against senior tour versions of Gonzalez, Segura, Sedgman, Trabert and played against a handicapped Hoad. When Laver matured, little Kenny took his rightful place as a second stringer. Fact is that even for pre open era standards, the early 60`s had some of the weakest competition.

ARFED, Federer played several years with no Murray and Djokovic and only young Nadal.

Considering that is not crap!!!

Click to expand...

ESPN have teamed up to determine who's the greatest athlete of all time. They chose Federer to represent tennis. Since ESPN is biased toward American athletes, I'm sure they would rather have Sampras or JMac and not Federer(non-American). However, they know Federer is the greatest tennis player of all time so they don't want to be ridiculed by the media/fans had they not chose Federer.

I always meant at the top 10-20 which is what defines tough, medium or weak
At the bottom level, yes, there are many more players now and it looks like end if 70-beginning 80 if we talk about good and massive journeymen

Click to expand...

That doesn't explain why split fields isn't weak, because it is. You can split the field into 10 separate tours, and each tour still have top 10-20 players(duh). A small pool results in fewer talented players. Capiche ?

Greatest has to be Sampras or Federer Laver was great but 3 of the slams then were played on grass and there were some old farts sending down pies with no video analysis like today for opponents to get after his weakness.

I was just being sarcastic about the way Kiki overhypes past era players (especially average players). I dont buy weak or strong eras crap. Since open era began every era produced 2, 3 or 4 fantastic players, Newcombe-Nastase-Smith, Borg-Vilas-Connors, Mac-Lendl, Wilander-Edberg-Becker, Agassi-Sampras-Courier, Fed-Safin-Hewitt, Nadal-Djokovic-Murray.

Well by that logic you have AIDS, cold war (which was anything but cold), racial segregation, militar dictatorships, etc. Such a golden age indeed.
Look anytime has highs and lows, and as far as i know i can listen to those bands too, and the classical geniuses of previous centuries (much more enjoyable than your ''golden era" i must say).

Regarding tennis, as an argentinian, i would recommend you to watch Nalbandian toying with Nadal at Paris Indoors 2007. If you find that brand of tennis to be boring then you have no clue whatsoever

Click to expand...

Cold war was cool and the greatest ever rivalry were at the OG with USA against USSR.I miss it.

I know your country suffered a lot in the 70´s and early 80´s but it does not take away all the great joy and creativity that was there around the world.